creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Mark Shields
Mark Shields
18 Feb 2012
What Endorsements Can Tell Us

The endorsement of a political candidate by another politician generally draws a well-deserved yawn from voters.… Read More.

11 Feb 2012
Religion Provides Added Value to U.S.

Without the courage and the constancy of Methodists and of Quakers, the struggle to abolish slavery in the … Read More.

4 Feb 2012
“He Could Have Been a Contender ...”

At the 1972 Democratic convention that nominated Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota for president, McGovern'… Read More.

Republicans Dangerous Game on Immigration

Share Comment

Mike Murphy, the successful and shrewd Republican media strategist, is a heretic within his own party. Sensitive to the near-universal reverence Republicans of all ages pay to the legacy and presidency of Ronald Reagan, Murphy bluntly warns his fellow GOPers that — given the profound, and continuing, demographic changes over the past three decades — Ronald Reagan would have a tough time beating Jimmy Carter today.

Consider this reality. In his 1980 race against President Carter, when Gov. Reagan won 56 percent of the nation's white vote, whites comprised 88 percent of the total national electorate. Simply stated, Reagan's 1980 share of the white vote alone constituted 49.3 percent of all voters. This meant that for the Gipper to achieve his overall 51 percent majority he simply had to earn the support of one out of seven non-white voters — which is what he did.

But by 2008, enormous changes were taking place. The white share of the national vote had fallen to 74 percent. So Reagan's 56 percent share of that group would have translated into just 41.2 percent of all voters. Demographic shifts, by themselves, would have subtracted more than 8 percentage points from Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory margin.

Mike Murphy uses facts such as these as a reminder that nobody can live in the past and succeed politically. Having worked for a couple of dozen Republican candidates — including John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger — Murphy has real credibility when he warns his party that anti-immigrant rhetoric of the variety heard from — mostly losing — Republican candidates in 2008 and 2010 could doom the party of Abraham Lincoln and Reagan to permanent minority status.

Consider California, where Murphy now lives. In 2008, whites were just 63 percent of the total state vote. African-American, Latino, Asian and other totaled 37 percent. By Murphy's calculations, unless Republicans can dramatically improve their following among those groups of voters (whom Barack Obama carried collectively by more than 75 percent), Republican candidates will be required to win a minimum two out of three California white votes in order to win a statewide election.

In 2008, John McCain received 46 percent of the votes of white Californians.

California is a case study of what can happen. Between 1948 and 1992, the Republicans carried the Golden State in every presidential election — except for LBJ's 1964 landslide. But since then, the Democrats have carried California in five consecutive presidential elections. In a reminder of political consequences, Republicans should remember that Pete Wilson used menacing TV spots featuring footage of illegal immigrants to win re-election while endorsing Proposition 187, which banned undocumented immigrants from receiving public services, including public education or medical care.

As 2008 could very well turn out, that 1994 campaign provided a short-term political advantage to Wilson and the GOP. But two years later, two committed civil-rights Republicans on the national ticket, Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, won barely one out of five Latino votes in California, while losing the state. Since Proposition 187, no California Republican has won a U.S. Senate race.

Even more alarming for Republicans, the white share of the overall U.S. population is predicted by Census projections to drop to 60 percent by 2020. Another cautionary note: The lion's share of the Latino growth over the next generation will not come from immigration but rather from the children of past immigrants who already live here.

In fact, Democratic pollster Peter Hart predicts that Texas — the reddest Republican of the nation's big states — will, because of its fast-growing Hispanic population, by 2024 — just four presidential elections away — have become a Democratic blue state.

Over the remaining three and a half months of the 2010 campaign, the future competitiveness of the Republican Party nationally may well hinge on whether GOP candidates can resist in these difficult economic times the cheap demagoguery of immigrant-blaming and instead seek common cause with the new and ever-changing American electorate.

To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

COPYRIGHT 2010 MARK SHIELDS


Comments

7 Comments | Post Comment
Why can't you understand the difference between immigrants and illegal alien invaders?
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Henricks
Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:20 PM
Excellent. I hope the Republican party keeps it up and, knowing their base which only recognizes white, heterosexual Christians as true Americans, they will. If this country is ever to face in a rational way the growing and worsening problems we face then every sensible American ought to hope for permanent GOP minority status.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Blueflash
Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:23 AM
We are faced witha fait d'e accompli of millions of illegal aliens from Latin America in the U.S. The most workable resolution of this issue it to grant them a one-time amnesty (provided they first pass an English competency test and criminal background check). As for myself, I am against illegal entry into this country, but if I were a chronically uemployed Mexican citizen I would be the first one over the border illegally to look for gainful employmen in the U.S. These so-called illegal aiens are people just like you and me who must support themselves and their families. And, importantly, I think they would make good citizens.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Jim Sullivan
Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:46 AM
Mark: Usually love your columns and discussion on PBS. The pedant in me can not let this one go. The “Lion's Share” is 100%. Any other usage destroys this pithy and useful phrase.
Comment: #4
Posted by: arthur l. finn
Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:01 PM
I often note comments like Blueflash's that state a desire for the Republicans to do the wrong thing in order to harm their chances for future elections. That sounds too much like the cheering shown on TV of people who just heard that the USA had lost its bid for the Olympics because it was something Obama had been working toward achieving. This country is for all of us, Republican and Democrat and all the other minor parties. We should not be happy to hear anyone rooting for another party's stupidity because that stupidity is followed by a lot of people (see the rating of Fox News!). Instead, we need to provide strong rational and emotional counter-arguments and try to persuade people not to take stupid stands such as the current anti-immigration right-wing lunacy.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Mike Ohr
Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:57 AM
Mike Ohr - "Instead, we need to provide strong rational and emotional counter-arguments and try to persuade people not to take stupid stands such as the current anti-immigration right-wing lunacy."

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, we actually enforce the laws of this country, protecting our sovereign territory and not favoring Illegals over citizens like Heir ObaMao is doing. Just a thought, I know Liberals have a hard time understanding logic and reason (favoring emotional counter-arguments, right?). We can't afford the millions of Illegals that are soaking up, conservatively, about $100 billion of our taxes per year... if they were granted amnesty, we'd have an increase of 20 million or so new unemployment, welfare and medicaid claims. Try absorbing that. We'd be like Greece and Spain within a year, ie, economically and morally bankrupt.

And for the record, conservatives aren't against immigration, they are against ILLEGAL immigration. Get it right, I know its hard for Liberals to distinguish the two, what with their inability to follow logical thought and reason.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Charles
Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:00 PM
Are Hispanics (the legal voting ones) sanguine about what each party seems to be saying about them, which is that Hispanics (the legal voting ones) are just A-OK with illegal immigration? Because that's what I'm hearing from the two parties. They are afraid that if they don't grant some some of "amnesty" or at least appear to be going that direction that the Hispanic voter willl punish them for it.

This, I'd think, would be none too flattering to the Hispanic voter.
Comment: #7
Posted by: JosephS
Thu Aug 5, 2010 6:22 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Mark Shields
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 19 Feb 2012

31 May 2008 The Last Tough Liberal

11 Feb 2012 Religion Provides Added Value to U.S.

8 Nov 2008 Forget McCain and Palin -- the GOP Has Deeper Problems